The Supreme Court has issued a ruling clarifying that federal trial court determinations on whether to enforce an administrative subpoena served on an employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are entitled to deference by the federal courts of appeals.
The 7–1 decision by the Court in McLane Company, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248 (April 3, 2017), reversed a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that had reinstated an expansive EEOC subpoena by essentially ignoring the trial court’s well-reasoned determination that the agency was demanding information that was irrelevant to the charge under investigation.
NT Lakis lawyers had filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in the case arguing that district court decisions in EEOC subpoena enforcement actions are entitled to deference because the trial court is in a better position to rule on fact-intensive relevancy and burden issues. The Supreme Court agreed.
The McLane ruling also clarifies that a district court does not need to defer to the EEOC’s determination of relevance with respect to a subpoena, but instead should evaluate for itself whether a subpoena seeks relevant information within the framework of the EEOC’s broad enforcement authority.
A copy of the Court’s opinion in McLane is available here.
Members of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) can read more here.